Posted on 03/08/2007 10:13:53 AM PST by presidio9
I have not read the posts but I suppose someone has noted that Ann makes fun of wussy liberal men because she is simply describing them. Easy to denigrate what cries out for denigration.
Re your post of a photo of Mr. Greenwald, he doesn't look much like a "strong man" to me. Bet he was pushed around a lot at recess.
The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR. There is no way for conservatives to get good PR - none. Because journalism exists to criticize, and conservatism respects performance - actually doing useful things. Even when the person doing the thing doesn't know the full ramifications of what he is doing - because nobody who is trying to meet a challege does know it all.Liberals go along with journalists, and conservatives are inherently in opposition to what journalists actually do (as opposed to what they claim to do).
Hell is not nice, if sugar-coating a subject is oiling the slippery slope there, I had rather be blunt on morality issues, cause if you love them, you care to tell the truth, just as you care to discipline a child in right and wrong.
"Those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them." (Prov. 24:25).
If you want to be nice to the point of not caring to show the light of truth, then read my tagline... Those that don't love their fellow don't care to do the hard work.
The idea that "image matters" is a singularly dangerous one in our society. We have to lie in a state of apathy, watching the world go to h*ll in a handbasket because to try to stop the ever-quickening pace of that trip would make other people uncomfortable. To do so would make us look odd, so we can't do it.
Image matters only to those who care more about appearances than facts.
Going by this arguement of "image matters," one shouldn't pray, protest or counsel at abortion clinics because it makes the prolifers look non-mainstream. One should not rescue Jews during the Holocaust; one should have engaged in open, caring discussions with the Nazis about common ground! One should not be Catholic (if those are one's beliefs) because of the priest scandal and because the Church ain't gonna ordain women EVER (oh, how sexist!). One should not belong to the NRA because NRAers are portrayed by Michael Moore and his ilk as gun-toting lunatics in favor of concealed carry of armed nuclear warheads. One should send one's children to snobby elitist private schools (despite a total lack of morals, ethics or interest in a solid education in the teachers, policy or staff) rather than to the small school with excellent educational standards because your child MUST attend such a school in order to have the correct "image." Finally, one should, as a church-going Christian woman, have an abortion rather than go through with an out-of-wedlock pregnancy because to do otherwise would tarnish the church's "image."
Coulter could apologize ad nauseam , cringe to the liberals in the hopes of being accepted as one of them (and not be snubbed at the country club), and vow never again to say anything that would make a liberal unhappy in any way, shape or form. Being Annie, she (I sincerely hope!) won't. She called a spade a spade, which made the libs get their panties in a knot. Too darn bad. If the liberals were half as "sensitive" as they expect us to be, we'd get along a lot better.
Notice not ONE WORD about the intelectual statement behind coulters comment.
This poofta prooves the point with change.
This salon write proves yet again the left is unarmed in a fight using brains.
It never ceases to amaze me how backstabbing some conservatives will be to their own in order to have the left think better of them.
I like that. Edwards is the replacement term for faggot.
ex: Barney Frank is an Edwards.
I care what the electorate thinks--and I called Ann classless because that's what she is. I thought you preferred calling a spade a spade.
If conservatives think she is a constructive force, then they are more out of touch that I realized.
This is pandering, nothing more, nothing less.
It might not be considered "classy" to take unwed mothers into one's home or adopt special-needs or minority children. It might not fit with the image that the country-club types would like to have. Nevertheless, both are truly great works of mercy and kindness.
Do let me know if I was correct in my original post.
What, pray tell, is a constructive force in conservatism, if Ann isn't?
Ann's cardinal sin is that she is blunt, honest, and doesn't give a darn what they think of her down at the country club. Facts matter. What others think about you doesn't.
Finally, I note with interest that you refer to conservatives in the third person.
Just a friendly piece of advice.
Facts DO matter. So does presentation. Cheerio.
"It is clear to me the pure conservatives (or social conservatives, whatever) are becoming increasingly impotent. As a result, they are flailing out more and are making less and less sense"
Ann was speaking to conservatives and she denigrated a liberal.
You are speaking to conservatives and you denigrate conservatives.
As a social conservative that was not pleased by Ann's remarks, I find you much more offensive.
It is hard to believe that you are lecturing on how to persuade people to the conservative point of view.
One need only look to this site (and this thread) to see an example of what I was talking about. I don't think that has caused the fissures in the site, but rather exposed them.
If you find me offensive, so be it. I am not in the public eye like Ann and ergo cannot do much harm. I'd rather say what I did than what she said any day. I am not beholden to any particular faction and I said what I felt to be true. After, might I add, I was called out.
It is clear to me that most people on this board do not want to be persuaded. They would rather say the same thing over and over again on their favorite subjects, and fall into line in one of the camps.
I'm simply pointing out that, you are more of an example of what you are criticizing than the woman, and the conservatives here at FR that you are attacking.
My advice is that if you support a cause, then you yourself should avoid trying to defend it.
and what did Edwards do?
sue a large group of doctors with faulty medical research and become wealthy in the process...
then timed and bought into a Senate seat...
then tries to tell what everyone ought to do...like a good liberal always does...
phooey!!!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.